tune_pid

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses important behaviors: gains are validated before reaching hardware, negative gains are rejected, and tuning guidance is returned. With no annotations, this significantly helps the agent understand safety and side effects. However, it does not mention whether changes are persistent or could disrupt the running controller, leaving some transparency gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains zero redundant phrases. Every sentence contributes necessary behavioral or output information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a clear core behavior but leaves meaningful gaps: it does not explain the *_param parameters, any prerequisites like node type, or the structure of the tuning guidance. This makes it adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 43%, with only the gain parameters described as 'must be >= 0'. The description reinforces this by stating negative gains are rejected, adding value for those params. However, the *_param parameters are completely unexplained, and node_name lacks description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Apply') and identifies the resource ('new PID gains to a controller node'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning safety validation and tuning guidance, which set_parameter and get_pid_state do not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies its use for PID tuning but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like set_parameter or get_pid_state. It also omits any preconditions, such as the node being a controller node or the need to stop the controller, so guidance is only implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.